And here we are again, with cockroaches I mean Democrats being cockroaches I mean Democrats.

Rep. Ryan was at a restaurant with a dinner party when out of the blue this vile professor comes over and goes ballistic at his table, creating a giant scene until she was thrown out on her ear for being so rude and hateful.

It would probably be better if the management simply asked people at the door what party they belonged to and blocked Democrats as haters BEFORE they barged in and started scenes, in my view.

The following article asks some pretty wonderful questions of this leftwing self-righteous hypocrite. I then have more piling on to do when Byron York gets done with this liberal turd:

Susan Feinberg, an associate professor of management and global business at Rutgers University, caused a stir in the left-wing blogosphere over the weekend with her account of witnessing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan drinking a glass of $350-a-bottle wine at an upscale restaurant near the Capitol. (Feinberg, who was at the restaurant, Bistro Bis, with her husband to celebrate her birthday, knew the wine was pricey because she could make out the name on the label and checked it on the wine list.) Feinberg confronted Ryan, accusing him of hypocrisy for drinking an expensive wine while advocating reduced spending for Medicare and Medicaid. But she didn’t stop there. Feinberg also suggested Ryan might be guilty of ethics violations, secretly snapped a photo of him and two dinner companions, and then took the “story” to Talking Points Memo, the lefty site which ran a high-profile piece suggesting Ryan might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

Ryan told TPM that his two dinner-mates had ordered the wine, and that he, Ryan, didn’t know what it cost and drank only one glass. Ryan’s explanation was supported by TPM’s account, presumably based on Feinberg’s recollection, which said that when Feinberg confronted Ryan about the cost of his wine, “Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?'”

Nevertheless, Feinberg and TPM hinted that Ryan might have violated House ethics rules by accepting an expensive meal from lobbyists. But it turned out that the two men with whom Ryan was dining were, as he said, economists and not lobbyists. Feinberg and TPM also suggested that Ryan might have violated House rules against accepting gifts in general. But it turned out that Ryan had paid for his meal and wine — Ryan even showed TPM his copy of the receipt, which TPM then posted on the web.

Having failed to catch Ryan in an act of wrongdoing, Feinberg and TPM accused him of hypocrisy. Ryan’s dining companions, one of whom was a wealthy hedge-fund manager, ordered two bottles of the $350 wine. Ryan, by his own account, drank one glass but nevertheless paid for one of the bottles. But the $700 wine bill outraged Feinberg and her husband, who were at the restaurant to celebrate her birthday. “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more [sic] than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week.” When she had finished her own meal, Feinberg confronted Ryan and angrily asked him “how he could live with himself” for drinking expensive wine while advocating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Feinberg left the restaurant after management intervened.

In one brief and unpleasant moment, Ryan got a taste of 2012-style political combat in which everyone, everywhere is a potential opposition campaign tracker and there are plenty of press outlets ready to publish a tracker’s accusations.

On Saturday, I sent Feinberg an email asking a few questions about the incident and about her unhappiness with Ryan. First, the photo she snapped of Ryan and two men sitting a few tables away appeared to be taken from her own table, and on that table was a bottle of wine. (Feinberg told TPM that she and her husband had shared a “bottle of great wine.”) A check of the Bistro Bis wine list — in much the way that Feinberg did at the restaurant — shows that the wine was a Thierry et Pascale Matrot 2005 Meursault, which is $80 per bottle at Bistro Bis. Was that, in fact, Feinberg’s bottle of wine?

I asked Feinberg, an economist, what price constituted outrageous in her mind. Would she have been as upset if Ryan’s wine were $150 a bottle? Or $100 a bottle? Or perhaps $80 a bottle, like her own — which is, after all, more than a day’s labor for a worker making the minimum wage.

If the problem was not just the wine’s cost, then what other factors were involved in Feinberg’s anger? Was it because she thought Rep. Ryan was a hypocrite for drinking expensive wine while recommending reduced spending on Medicare and Medicaid? Was it because she believed Rep. Ryan was corrupt for drinking with two men she suspected were lobbyists? And finally, did Feinberg believe she behaved appropriately in the matter? Would it be appropriate for a conservative who felt strongly about, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, or Rep. Barney Frank, to do something similar to them under similar circumstances?

Feinberg’s response was brief: “I’m sorry. I have no comment on this.”

After the TPM story was published, a number of left-leaning websites picked up the tale. New York magazine wrote that Ryan has “$350, fiscally imprudent, fancypants” taste in wine. The Atlantic wrote that Ryan “is in the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine,” although the publication presented no evidence to support that contention. The Atlantic also expressed hope that the wine story would become as much of a political burden on Ryan as the $400 haircut was on former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Ryan himself is downplaying, but not avoiding, the matter. He answered questions from TPM, producing the receipt, but has said little else. When asked whether incidents like this might happen again in the future, with Democrats and Republicans engaged in mortal combat over federal spending, a person close to Ryan said only: “I would hope that it was just one woman who had a little too much to drink and had a little too much fire in her belly and just decided to cross a line. Paul is more than happy to have a debate and understands that people disagree with him, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do that.”

It turns out that this Professor Susan Feinberg worked on John Kerry’s campaign. The relevant facts about Senator John Kerry and his rich liberal activist wife occur near the end of this very recently written piece (again, Democrats are just hypocrites ALL the time; there’s literally ALWAYS something to prove it constantly going on):

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income. In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity. When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER. Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen. Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts. There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes. There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes. There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht. There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family. And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill. And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix. Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering. She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.” And these slime certainly should. But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

You think these people don’t know their way around $350 bottles of wine the way you know the way to the bathroom in your own home?

Let’s get back to Susan Feinberg and the guy she thought deserved to be president. John Kerry’s wife is a filthy rich heiress who inhereited the Heinz fortune. But guess how much taxes she pays? She’s structured it so she actually pays less than the median American family. Did she HAVE to do that? Oh, no. She just wanted to screw you, the typical taxpayer, by using every possible gimmick to lessen her tax burden even while she self-righteously lectures everybody else about their “duty to pay more.” SHE could pay more, but she is a liberal, and ergo sum a hypocrite.

How about John Kerry himself? Well, John Kerry splurged on himself to buy a $7 million yacht. Not feeling any need to give American workers jobs, Kerry opted to buy his yacht in New Zealand. And then, not feeling any need to pay taxes, Kerry opted to moor his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his own state of Massachusetts, so he could save $1/2 a million in tax. But that doesn’t stop him from lecturing everybody else.

A small government free market guy who believes people should be free to keep and spend their own money having a $350 bottle of wine is not hypocritical; a liberal who says the rich should pay more in taxes while welching on his or her own taxes is, by contrast, a quintessential hypocrite.

I’d say I was amazed at the chutzpah of a liberal who goes to dine at a high-end restaurant and then is appalled that a Republican would actually go to the same restautant. But I have long come to understand that the essential ingredient to liberalism is blatant abject hypocrisy. To put it in the context of her own story, “When she had finished her own pricey meal, she got up and rudely gave Paul Ryan a facefull of the hell her husband tragically has to live with every night of his life for daring to have a pricey meal.”

Right-wing Fox host Glenn Beck decided it was finally time that he took his daughter and wife to see a showing of Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’ at Bryant, a trip he’d wanted to do for years. He did on Monday night – but was unfortunately met by a bunch of people acting like animals.

Beck has wanted to take his daughter to Bryant Park for a very long time, and when his wife said to him, “You wanna go?” because of the whispering, pointing and texting and other behavior from the people there, he turned and said to her, “Not on your life.”

“It was a hostile situation,” Beck recounted of the trip. The host’s WIFE – yes, his wife, had a bottle of alcohol “accidentally” kicked on to her back, leaving her and the blanket “completely wet.” The crowd behind them laughed about it.

It unfortunately didn’t get any better as the night went on. His wife and daughter were getting up to go to the bathroom when a man pointed his fingers and yelled, “We hate conservatives here!” His daughter had tears in her eyes when she and her mother returned to their blanket.

Another woman stood up behind the family, pointed her finger at them and said, “We’re in New York, and we HATE Republicans!”

Beck and his family were treated like garbage by ignorant, rude liberals at the movie showing. He said Tuesday, “If I had suggested — and I almost did — wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s a tree here. You could just lynch me. And I think there would’ve been a couple in the crowd that would’ve!”

But the host somehow maintained his sympathy for others at the showing: “I apologize to anybody who had their movie experience wrecked because of the people that found it so necessary to spew hatred,” Beck said, “but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Beck was also bothered by the fact that no one jumped to his defense at the park. He said he was “…a little surprised that nobody — nobody — in the crowd said ‘knock it off. Just, stop. Just be cool. I don’t agree with the guy, but just be cool.’ ”

The host said his experience was so horrible, he wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemies: “All through the evening, I wanted to say to you today, please, please, please don’t ever treat anybody like that. If Van Jones comes and sits right next to you, please don’t treat anybody like that.”

Video below. Where’s the outrage?

By the way, this isn’t uncommon at all. It’s not dissimilar to the way that Andrew Breitbart was treated when he showed up in the public common area at a Netroots Nation convention. He was immediately accosted, surrounded and heckled and treated like dirt by people who actually called themselves “journalists.”

I have met a fair number of “celebrities” in my life. As someone who lives in the Palm Springs area, it’s not all that unusual – especially if one is involved at all in the community. If I genuinely admired a celebrity, I offered my congratulations to him or to her; if I didn’t, I have left them alone and ignored them.

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York’s Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. “No, it won’t be like that, Dad,” his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: “Oh, it will be fine. Don’t worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn’t like that.”

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck’s tormentors, and I wasn’t there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it’s a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can’t fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don’t get that when you’re outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you’re not brave.

But they’re not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn’t I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn’t I awesome?

This is a liberal’s idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I’ve seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes — a lot more often than you’ve heard about — liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives … and then bravely run away.

That’s why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren’t are the conservative’s bodyguards — and they can’t do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces no charges — she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, “Well, you provoked him.”

Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul’s assailant).

Maybe they wouldn’t be such good little rules-followers if they ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck’s own daughter can’t imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can’t be expected to, either.

Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins’ New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20 percent chance of being assaulted.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America — and not just because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it’s time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he’s earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It’s a shame this job wasn’t done by their parents. It won’t be done by the police.

As long as liberals can’t be normal and prosecutors can’t be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we’ll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama’s boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

One day liberals will get their comeuppance. God created hell for Satan and his demons and their legion of demonic bureaucrats that are also known as “Democrats.” And it is that belief that there IS a divine justice – and that vengeance is God’s – that separates conservatives from liberals.

WASHINGTON (AP) – As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America’s ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum’s management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum’s case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy “has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador’s tenure,” said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. “At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities.”

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department’s inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. “The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business,” she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. “We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors,” he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

“The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style,” the report said. “She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction.”

“Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador’s actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal,” it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. “It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors.”

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum’s major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama’s campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama’s campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign’s money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them “the importance she attaches to the perquisites of” being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador’s residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador’s requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

– Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss “professional school” whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as “management meetings.” Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

– The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed “to use excess year-end funds” to buy items unless they are used in that year.

– Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she “preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided.” The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher “reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds.” The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Liberalism = Abuse of Other People’s Money.

Cynthia Stroum ought to be held up as a quintessential liberal, as she is a total hypocrite who talks about how much she cares for the little people while running roughshod over them. And her selection for an ambassadorship ought to be held up as a quintessential Obama appointment. It is the paradigm of liberal hypocrisy.

Liberals endlessly lecture Republicans as being “hypocrites” when they preach good moral values and then fail to live up to those good values with immoral personal conduct. And, of course, that IS hypocrisy, no question about it.

But Democrats don’t just preach garbage that they themseleves don’t bother to live up to; they seize other people’s money and routinely hypocritically betray their own stated values using other people’s money to do it.

Just keep in mind that Republicans can’t steal your morality and spend it on their mistresses the way Democrats routinely do in their hypocrisy.

She shouldn’t resign; Obama should look for MORE self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing tyrants JUST LIKE HER so we can better see what Democrat rule is really like.

Liberals love to present themseves as “tolerant” and “intellectual,” providing a forum for different ideas and being open to new experiences. The fact that it is a gigantic croc of something really putrid is completely irrelevant.

An organic wine from Chile has oenophiles in San Francisco turning up their noses. But there’s nothing wrong with the wine. It’s the name that bothers them:

Palin Syrah.

The wine from a boutique vineyard in Chile was once a strong seller, but now it’s an outcast in the City by the Bay because its name comes way too close to a certain governor from the state of Alaska, says Celine Guillou, co-owner of the Yield Wine Bar.

Palin Syrah — pronounced Pay-LEEN — takes its name from a ball used in a Chilean-style hockey game, and it has been on the bar’s wine list for a while. But sales have plummeted ever since John McCain named Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The story goes on to say, “Before McCain made his announcement it was selling very well, because it’s an affordable wine and it’s from South America,” Guillou said. “Then he made his announcement and we hear people making comments constantly about the wine.”

And we learn that:

Now that the wine has been unofficially blacklisted by San Franciscans, its place on Yield Wine Bar’s list is threatened. “I think people try to see the humor in it, but we’re in San Francisco, so most of the people we have in I’m going to suspect are fairly liberal. People like to joke about it, but for some people it evokes quite a visceral reaction,” Guillou said.

I really have to hand it to San Fransisco liberals; their intolerance, their ingorance, their hostility, and their never-ending ability to put “visceral reactions” ahead of reality time and time again never ceases to amaze me. I mean, you think, “They can’t all be completely crazy, can they?” Oh, yes they can.

Hey, conservatives, think like liberals: don’t let your children play with blocks, because it sounds too much like ‘Barack.’